You really believe all those miracles?

[Josh]

Originally posted 3/24/06:

Often when I do an in-depth study of the Old Testament (or some portions of the new), the question arises in my mind, "I REALLY believe all these miracle stories?!"

I don't have the same answer to that question all the time.

Sometimes miracles of the calibre often seen in the Old Testament seem highly improbable if not downright absurd- scientifically, or in comparison to my experience. It's not that they demonstrably COULD NOT have happened, it's just that they sometimes seem to strain credulity.

Other times, conversely, many of them seem amazingly credible in the light of science, history, or my own faith experiences.

Still other times I wonder whether I'm just not reading the Bible right- not picking up on it's mythical nature-- especially the older parts. One need only read just a little of other ancient documents and histories to know what I mean here- ancient writers pretty seamlessly blended myth and history.

And there I remain, somewhere on this sliding spectrum, in regard to many of these miracle stories. (I realize I'm being vague here- it's just that there are so many miracle stories and so many kinds of miracles reported)

But yet, when it comes to most of the New Testament and the miracles spoken of there, I find more confidence. I am persuaded by historical considerations such as the fact that the accounts we have are so near the actual events, or there is some verification (explicit or implicit) in external sources, etc.., Most importantly I am persuaded by the way the authors write about the miracles (convincingly, honestly, and credibly) that miracles do and did take place in the life of Jesus-- and most importantly that we can believe with assurance that He rose from the dead.

And it's that fact that sheds some light, or maybe some grace for a natural skeptic like me, on all the older miracle stories of the Old Testament; if THESE happened, then THOSE could have as well (or, at least it matters less whether all of them are historical or whether some are legendary).

I don't think we need to be dishonest with ourselves about these things. Faith is perplexing enough without having to 'keep up appearances'.

My approach is to try to take the whole Bible as it was meant to be taken, doing my best to explore interpretive possibilities, being open to the miraculous, and not feeling too bad when it's hard to believe that a donkey talked once. After all, the point of a miracle is that it is exceptional- and hard to believe.

Mythological story? Historical event? Pre-scientific explanations of natural phenomena? Balaam's ass and whether the sun really stood still (from a scientific perspective)-- it's all secondary to the miracle of the Incarnation-- and all those stories, whether they sit well with us or not, are useful for teaching and correcting and training in righteousness, baptised, as it were, by the bona-fide Resurrection of the Son of God.

[aimee]

Originally posted 10/06:

I struggle similarly with the miracles at times. I wonder though, would they be effective in teaching about Jesus and God if they were not true, or imbellished? It seems strange when we are talking God, a perfect being, that he would inspire people to write half-truths, or made-up stories about what he has done. Since I believe the Bible was inspired by God, it seems like the people writing it would be very concerned about writing the truth. I mean look at the scriptures and how meticulously they were copied so that the origionals are almost word for word with our translations today. On the other hand when Joshua's hands were lifted to God and the sun didn't set, I believe these are the words of a mere witness, and not necessarily the scientific explanation for these things. If we believe in an all powerful God of the universe, creator of all things, why can't he do miracles that are of that calibre? Just because we don't understand it, and or don't see it happening today doesn't mean it never existed. I mean people made pyramids in ancient egypt and stonehinge, and huge pictures in the deserts, and we are still trying to figure out how they did it, how much more of a mystery are the abilities of God? Not that I understand the Bible in it's complexity or that I don't have my doubts, I doubt the very existance at times, but if we do belive in God I think it would be short shifting him to say 'sure you can heal people, but walking on water, or parting the red sea, now that's too far out there'.



I respect your opinion, and I can see that your question was put out there to rouse interest and bring about discussion. It seems that there are many camps on this and that we still all have our faith in Christ in common.

[Josh]

Originally posted 10/06:

Thanks a lot for this reply. Yes, I'll admit, there was some 'baiting' going on on that post (but it's taken 7 months to get a bite! )


"I wonder though, would they be effective in teaching about Jesus and God if they were not true, or imbellished? It seems strange when we are talking God, a perfect being, that he would inspire people to write half-truths, or made-up stories about what he has done."


A big part of me resonates with this perspective. But a few things in my experience have challenged it, and my thinking has morphed to some degree.

Here are a couple of things that have influenced me along these lines:

1) reading other ancient texts, apart from the Bible. I think growing up I thought the Old Testament Bible stories were exceptionally unique in their reporting of miracles, etc.. Now, note, I do think the Old Testament is exceptional (and miraculously unique) in many ways, but, when one reads other ancient texts, it quickly becomes apparent that miracle stories are the norm. This typically leads a Christian thinker toward three possible conclusions:

a) these pagan stories aren't historically accurate, but the Biblical ones are, for some reason
b) miracles in general happened much more frequently (in the pagan world and with the Israelites) back then, for some reason
c) ancient peoples didn't draw nearly as fine a line between history, myth, and science

2) C.S. Lewis. Lewis saw the Bible, starting with Genesis, as steadily progressing from the largely mythical, and later through the blending of history and myth, and ultimately to a conlcusion where myth became substantial fact in the New Testament period.

But, and this is probably the most important part of his argument: he would say that myth isn't not true, or even half-true. He would say myth is often fully true, even if it doesn't correspond with scientific or rigourous historical fact. That's because mythos has a different objective than science and history.

Now, I guess I'd say that I have a higher view of the historical accuracy of the Old Testament than did Lewis. Part of this has to do with archaelogical and textual discoveries since his time. But, nevertheless, I have found his insights helpful in at least creating a bottom line for the skeptic in me.

The biggest difficulty for the historian with the Old Testament is that it's often way more 'unverifiable' than the New Testament. There's just no way we can determine what really happened in all those miracle stories.

So, for me, while the question of historical fact is always important to me, it is just less important to me as of late. Because all of Scripture is inspired, it is useful to us in our faith. So then, we take all of it seriously, regardless of the genres we might think are being employed by the authors.

"If we believe in an all powerful God of the universe, creator of all things, why can't he do miracles that are of that calibre? Just because we don't understand it, and or don't see it happening today doesn't mean it never existed...if we do belive in God I think it would be short shifting him to say 'sure you can heal people, but walking on water, or parting the red sea, now that's too far out there'. "

I totally agree, with one caveat. My question often isn't whether or not God can do x, y, or z (miracles), but whether or not He did x, y, or z, in a particular instance, or how he did x, y, or z.

Wow, I could go on and I can already see this is woefully inadequate. Thank you so much for posting on this- please continue this discussion. It's good for all of us. I'll try to respond to the rest of your post soon! The kids are ready for some attention!

[Josh]

Aimee,

As you can see, there are some more articles on the topic of miracles in this forum (thus the reason I moved our posts). If you have time, check them out, because they might fill in some of the holes in my perspective, especially Lightning and Love: Defining Miracles.

I welcome your feedback/ perspective (and anyone elses) for I feel it's not an easy topic and am always open to letting others help me refine my understanding


Also somewhat related, especially in regard to the question of whether in any given case we are actually understanding the intent of the writers of Scriptures when writing about miracles, I'd point you this other forum topic:

The Nature of Scripture/ Inspiration

[Josh]

Originally posted 10/06:

BTW, thanks for your gracious tone. Misunderstandings and disagreements about these things unfortunately tend to be pretty cantakorous among Christians in my experience.

A few more responses to what you wrote:





"Since I believe the Bible was inspired by God, it seems like the people writing it would be very concerned about writing the truth. I mean look at the scriptures and how meticulously they were copied so that the origionals are almost word for word with our translations today. On the other hand when Joshua's hands were lifted to God and the sun didn't set, I believe these are the words of a mere witness, and not necessarily the scientific explanation for these things."



First off, let me affirm that I also believe that the Bible is inspired by God, which is definitely an essential, historically orthodox Christian belief (of course, the rub is that there are a bewildering array of ways of defining inspiration)

As far as the 'concern with truth' I take it you mean historical, factual claims. I definitely pick that up in many books in the Bible (Luke 1:1-4 gives a great example). But I guess I would say that some other portions are concerned with a different sort of truth other than the strictly historical.

For example, Jesus' parables. Here we have outstanding fiction of the highest calibre, which fully speak the Truth in powerful ways (think of the prodigal son story, for example). The parables are one good example of what I mean by true myth.

Of course, we know that Jesus intended those stories to be that way. We know because of the context, etc.. that he wasn't even trying to represent specific historical events.

In the Old Testament is often more tricky than that- especially when names and dates from the 'real world' are involved.

The book of Jonah is a great example of this debate- scholars are thoroughly divided over whether it was actually intended to be a historical account or a morality tale/theological treatise (there are some features in the book that do lend strongly to the latter perspective, I think). But, in my opinion, if Jonah was written as a tale, it doesn't make it less true. It's a powerfully true book, expressing God's priorities and amazing grace.

But doesn't there have to be some real history behind the Bible to really give it some oommph. I mean, is it enough to just have a collection of 'nice ideas' outside of the realm of history?

I don't think only true ideas are enough in the case of Christianity. Our faith is grounded in historical events (heck, the Jews invented history!). 1 Corinthians 15 makes this point way clear, I think, that for example, Jesus must actually have physically risen for our faith to make any sense.

But just as you said that the Bible isn't always trying to give us a 'scientific textbook' answer to things (like Joshua's long day), I'm just not convinced that it is always giving us the kinds of historical accounts we would expect from history textbooks, either.

One case in point on that would be the way the Gospels often mix up the order of events in the life of Christ. Those aren't errors, they just show us that the authors were sometimes less concerned with chronology and more concerned with bringing out certain themes, etc..